1. Relationships L1

2. Why do men and women look for different things in mates?6 6
Why do men and women look for different things in mates?
what is it that men see as being most important in a potential mate, and what is it that women find most desirable?
Why do you think that men and women have different criteria?

3. HUMAN REPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIOUR
These are Evolutionary explanations of attraction and formation
To fit this theory behaviour must be ADAPTIVE.
Adaptive behaviour or traits help an animal to survive and produce young that are also ‘fit’ enough to survive and reproduce.
This ensures that the individuals genes are carried on to future generations.
So all behaviour or traits animals exhibit today are probably there because in some way they helped the animal survive and reproduce successfully. So human reproductive behaviour must also have developed this way!

4. Human Reproductive Behaviour:
Evolution
What is evolution & why are psychologists interested?
Reproductive behaviour
How do men and women attract/choose sexual partners?
How has evolution shaped sexual behaviour (e.g. jealousy, infidelity)?
Has evolution affected how men & women approach child-rearing?

5. Evolution
Charles Darwin’s attempt to explain the huge variety of living things…
…in a scientific way
…without drawing upon religious ideas

6. Evolution
Can you outrun a bear?
An organism’s ability to survive depends on how well its characteristics allow it to:
Exploit the opportunities available in its environment
Avoid or deal with the threats presented by its environment
We call this the organism’s fitness

7. The Giraffes Neck
Lamarck believed that the long necks of giraffes evolved as generations of giraffes reached for ever higher leaves.
Why could that not be true based on what we know now about genetics and inheritance?
So how did the giraffes neck evolve?

8. Evolution
Fit organisms are more likely to survive into adulthood than unfit ones.
Consequently, they are more likely to mate and have offspring
They pass on their genes to the next generation
Gradually, the genes for successful characteristics spread through the population

9. Evolution & Psychology
Evolutionary psychology regards humans as subject to same evolutionary processes as other animals (continuity)
Assumes that behavioural characteristics can be inherited just like physical ones
Tries to explain human behaviour/psychology in terms of evolutionary processes

10. Evolution & Psychology7
So how can evolution account for the fact that compared to other animals we are
So what have we evolved that has enabled us to survive despite these obvious handicaps
Slow
Physically weak
Lacking agility
Poor climber
Small teeth
No claws
Highly dependent young
Poor night vision
Large brain
Planning
Imagination
Language
Social organisation
Tool use
Communication
Problem solving

11. Natural and Sexual Selection are Different....
Natural Selection
Ability to survive in a particular environment.
Sexual Selection
Ability to attract/find a mate and reproduce effectively
These are separate processes, the characteristics that facilitate reproduction but do not necessarily increase survival chances
Has the peacocks tail evolved through natural selection or sexual selection.? Think about it individually before we take a vote.

13. Sexual Selection Investments and Returns
Reproduction requires an investment of resources (energy)
It is poor evolutionary sense to waste resources; there must be a ‘return’ in terms of survival and/or reproductive success
The greater the amount of resources invested, the harder an organism will try to protect its investment
Which model/theory does this support?

14. Women & Men Both women & men are trying to reproduce successfully
Because of the physiological differences between them they adopt different strategies
So they are looking for different things in a potential reproductive partner
Consequently, evolution predicts that they will find different characteristics attractive – can you think what they may be?

15. Evolution and Mate Choice
Women can have only a few offspring and invest a great deal in time and energy and often their own health is compromised (so earning or foraging capacity is reduced!)
Men can have virtually unlimited offspring and can get away with little or no investment.
Sexual selection suggests that men and women adopt different mating strategies
Male – relatively indiscriminate, interested in fertility of potential mate
Female – relatively discriminating, interested in ability of potential mate to provide for offspring

16. Evolutionary hypothesis therefore:
Men are looking for women who are likely to reproduce successfully
Young
Physically attractive
Women are looking for successful men who can provide for offspring
Older
Successful/rich/high status

17. Research Support for Evolutionary Theory
EVIDENCE
Buss (1989)
Cross cultural comparisons (37 different cultures)
F placed higher importance (average 2x) on wealth in all cases
F preferred older partners (average 3.5 years) in all cases
F placed more importance on financial resources and prospects
Pawlowski & Dunbar (1999)
Personal Ad study
Woman generally make more demands inpersonal ads (i.e. Mention more selection criteria)
Women were more likely than men to withold infor about their age and this tendency peaked between years old.

18. Will OUR research evidence support this Evolutionary Theory of Attraction and Formation?
Dunbar & Waynforth (1995) found that 42% of males sought a youthful mate compared with 25% of females; 44% of males sought a physically attractive partner compared with 22% of females.
Davis (1990) also found that women advertised attractiveness whereas men advertised economic status.
Lonely Hearts
Study

19. If Sociobiological theory were true ….9
Does Evolutionary Theory does provide us with an explanation for the global perception of BEAUTY?
If Sociobiological theory were true ….
Then what would you predict about the perception of beauty/attractiveness around the world?
We would all be looking for the same indicators of ability to bare children/provide for young etc.
Therefore we should all think that the same attributes/characteristics are beautiful/attractive.
But do we?
What do you think – what is beauty all about?

20. Symmetry preference in both humans and animals is that symmetric individuals have a higher mate-value; scientists believe that this symmetry is equated with a strong immune system & healthy genes as abnormal genes cause asymetry. Thus, beauty is indicative of more robust genes, improving the likelihood that an individual's offspring will survive.
Is this evolutionary theory is supported by research ? i.e. are standards of attractiveness similar across cultures?

21. Is Beauty a Subjective Quality
Standards of beauty change over time.
In US , curvaciousness standards have changed, with a more boyish figure seen as more attractive today
Playboy centrefolds –over time, models have become thinner and have lower bust-waist ratios.
Situational factors can influence judgments of beauty
Liking increases ratings of attractiveness (Gross & Crofton, 1977)
Love decreases ratings of attractiveness of non-partners (Johnson & Rusbalt, 1989)
Men who viewed Playboy and Penthouse rated wives a s less attractive than men who did not. (Kenrick et al, 1989)

22. Beauty (Race & Era~ Common Traits?)
Asian
Black
Caucasian
1350 B.C. Egypt
500 B.C. Greece
164 A.D. Rome
1794 A.D.
RESEARCH: Cross-cultural consistency (Cunningham, 1995)
Asian, Latino, White and Black students rating people from all four groups on attractiveness
Very high consistency.

23. What is Physically Attractive?
Facial features
Wide-set eyes
Small, straight nose
Well-proportioned Symmetrical features
Babies prefer faces considered attractive by adults.
Computerized “averaged” faces
Averaged are attractive

24. Attractiveness and men
Cunningham (1986) found men with square jaws, small eyes and thin lips were regarded by women as more attractive. Possibly these features indicate maturity.
Langlois et al (1994) found averaged faces were perceived as more attractive. Argues this could be because they are familiar.

25. Criticism Self report data
Langlois et al (2000) found physical attractiveness equally important for men and women
Gender differences found in others studies have been criticised for being small

26. What is Physically Attractive?
Symmetrical features
Certain body features
Waist-hip ratio
For women, hourglass
For men “V” shape
Tall men preferred
WHAT THEORY EXPLAINS THIS? EVOLUTONARY

27. 4 Faces
8 Faces
16 Faces
32 Faces
4 Faces
8 Faces
16 Faces
32 Faces

28. Averageness: Why?
People also find other averaged objects more attractive (Halberstadt & Rhodes, 2002):
Dogs, birds, fish, cars, and wristwatches
Average faces are more prototypical, and therefore, more familiar
People prefer “symmetry,” and averaged faces are more symmetrical
Symmetry might be associated with health, fitness, and fertility – EVOLUTIONARY THEORY

29. Role of culture

30. Anderson et al (1992) Culture and physical attractiveness
Aim: To study female body size preferences in 54 cultures
Method: questionnaire on female body sixe preferences (men responded) in 54 cultures. Correlational data obtained.
Cultures divided into groups according to the reliability of their food sources.
Findings:
Food supply
Preference
Very unreliable
Moderately unreliable
Moderately reliable
Very reliable
Heavy Body
71%
50%
39%
40%
Moderate Body
29%
33%
20%
Slim Body 0%
17%
22%

31. Evaluation: Correlation not causation!
What are some explanations for these differences?
Does show how culture influences perceptions of attraction

32. Is Beauty a Subjective Quality?
People from different cultures enhance their beauty in very different ways.
body piercings, hairstyling, molding bones, make-up and painting, plastic surgery
Ideal body shapes vary across cultures, as well as among racial groups within a culture.
In Peru, women with “tubular” shapes are seen as more attractive than hour-glass shape
White Americans view thinness as more attractive than Black Americans

33. Sexual selection & fashion
Sexual attractiveness is determined by characteristics that suggest that the person (male or female) is a ‘safe genetic bet’
Fashion in evolutionary terms, is a ‘con trick’ to suggest or exaggerate favourable characteristics.

35. Is this a cognitive, biological or socio-cultural explanation of attraction?
What are the processes involved?

36. Reward/need Satisfaction Theory (Clore & Byrne, 1974): the why…
Theory in a nutshell: “We are attracted to individuals whose presence is rewarding for us” VALIDATES ONE’S OWN OPINIONS AND BOOSTS SELF ESTEEM (THE WAY YOU THINK ABOUT YOURSELF)
Research has shown that the following have reward value:
Proximity – Physical closeness we are social animals and need to be with others (affiliation)
Exposure and Familiarity – Proximity increases possibility of interaction (exposure) which leads to familiarity. We like familiar things and find them rewarding.
Similarity - “Birds of a feather flock together” This is rewarding as people who think like us make us feel more confident of our own opinions which boosts our self esteem. We also think that people like us will like us, so we like them. This is called:
Reciprocal Liking – “I like you because you like me!” If you know someone likes you it makes you feel good and so is rewarding.
Physical Attractiveness According to the attractiveness stereotype (Dion et al 1972) we think attractive looking people have more attractive personalities , and we are rewarded with kudos of being with an attractive person
So where is the evidence for all this?

37. Reciprocity: Liking Others Who Like Us
Reciprocity: We like people who like us
An enormously powerful effect
How to win friends and influence people (Dale Carnegie, 1937)
Sold 15 million copies
If you want others to like you, make sure they know you like them!

38. Physical Attractiveness
According to the attractiveness stereotype (Dion et all 1972) we perceive attractive people as also having more attractive personalities. (The halo effect)

39. Physical Attractiveness Research Evidence:
“What’s beautiful is good” (Dion et al., 1972)
Teachers judge attractive students as more intelligent than unattractive students (Clifford & Walster, 1973),
Adults, and nurses in pediatric wards, punish unattractive children more harshly than attractive children (Dion, 1974)
Texas judges set lower bail and smaller fines for attractive suspects (Downs & Lyons, 1991)
Attractive people make more money (Hamermesh & Biddle, 1994) and get better job ratings from bosses (Hosoda et al., 2003)
Parents spend more time looking at attractive babies!!!

40. Physical Attractiveness: Further support
Physical attractiveness is a powerful predictor of being liked. “Beauty is a greater recommendation than any letter of introduction” (Aristotle)
The computer dance study Walster (1966)
Incoming college freshmen randomly paired for a dance
The most important predictor of desire to date the person afterwards was physical attractiveness (for men and women)
To be with someone who is attractive is rewarding for the pleasure of looking at them and the kudos it gives you with your friends and competitors.

41. Reciprocity: Liking Others Who Like Us
Dittes & Kelley (1956) anonymous feedback to participants in a group discussion about what the others thought of them. They reported more attraction to group members if they believed they liked them.
Process involved: we feel validated by others liking and are likely to like them more in return.

42. Similarity: Liking People Who Are Just Like Us
Birds of a feather
flock together
Opposites
attract

43. How much does similarity influence relationship formation
Winch (1958) found married couples who had different personalities were happier than those who had similar personalities. He argues couples are happier if they complement each other.
However research is on the side of similarity

44. Burgess & Wallin (1953) Sample: 1000 engaged couples
Method: questionnaire on 42 personal characteristics.
Findings: No support for opposite attracts. More similarity found between couples.
Rosenbaum (1986) control, dissimilar, similar views.
Finding: Significantly greater liking for stranger with similar views
Replications have supported this study with dissimilar views reducing liking.

45. Brewer (1968) Cross cultural study on 30 tribal groups in East Africa.
Extent to which any tribe liked a member of another tribe was determined primarily by perceived similarity in attitudes followed by proximity.
Condon & Crano (1988) found the participants in their study were attracted to those with similar attitudes because they inferred the person will view them more positively.

46. Similarity: Liking People Who Are Just Like Us
Procedure
Pairs selected based on attitudes
½ similar attitudes
½ dissimilar attitudes
Pairs went on a date
Results
Highly similar pairs were more attracted to each other than dissimilar pairs
Birds of a feather
flock together

47. Similarity: Liking People Who Are Just Like Us
The matching hypothesis:
People tend to date and marry others of similar attractiveness
Why does it happen?
People want to date attractive people, but rejection hurts
Possibility of rejection makes people more realistic
Most attractive people pair off and are “off the market”
People seek the best but settle for what they can get!

48. Proximity: Liking People who are Nearby
The single best predictor of attraction
Where we live & work influences the friends we make.
“If you can’t be with the one you love,
honey, love the one you’re with.”

49. Proximity: Liking People who are Nearby Evidence:
Westgate West: Housing at MIT ~1949
(Festinger, 1950)
“Contrary to popular belief, I do not believe that friends are necessarily the people you like best; they are merely the people who got there first.” (Sir Peter Ustinov, 1977)
Close friends:
Next door neighbours: 41%
Two doors down: 22%
Opposite ends of hallway: 10%

50. Further support
Bossard (1931)found couples in Chicago who lived within 1 block if one another were more likely to get married than those who lived 2 blocks apart.
Clarke (1952) > 50% of people married in Columbus, Ohio lived within walking distance of each other.
Columbus Ohio had a population of 400,000 people in Is this a small city? What are the implications for dense urban living and relationships? How do people form relationships now?

51. Exposure/Familiarity Research Evidence (Moreland & Beach, 1992)
Procedure
Four women and a classroom
4 women attended class
1 women 0 times
1 woman 5 classes
1 woman 10 classes
1 woman 15 classes
Students rate women on traits at end of semester
Results The more classes the woman attended, the
more favorable her ratings became.

52. Why does Proximity Work?
Availability:
More likely to meet, so more likely to form a relationship.
Mere exposure
The more often people are exposed to an object, the more positively they evaluate that object: Humans like familiar things, they make us feel safe and happy – which is rewarding.

53. Evaluation of proximity
Provides the minimum requirements for meeting and potential forming relationships but more is involved.
Modern living – impact of loss of community ties and growth of urban centers. We may be close but are we close?

54. Is this a cognitive, biological or socio-cultural explanation of attraction?
What are the processes involved?

55. Reward/Need Satisfaction Model RECAP
So what are the five factors influencing relationship formation that are rewarding to us?
Proximity
Exposure and Familiarity
Physical Attractiveness
Similarity
Reciprocal Liking
How do these link to the Reward/Need Satisfaction Model?

56. Need Satisfaction (Argyle, 1994)
There are seven basic motives or needs, each of which can be satisfied at least in part by interpersonal relationships : When our needs are satisfied it is rewarding and we learn X = feeling good Biological = Eating together Dependency = Being comforted/nurtured Affiliation = Seeking company/approval Dominance = Establishing social order Sex = Reproduction Aggression = Interpersonal hostility Self-esteem = Being valued by others. EVIDENCE Schachter, 1959 looked at the need to affiliate and how long could people go deprived of human contact. He found individual differences, one person felt the uncontrollable urge to leave after 20 minutes, but another managed 8 days. However, all of them admitted to feeling nervous and uneasy, were apathetic and withdrawn, reporting that they constantly thought and dreamed of other people. EVALUATION Presents a one-sided picture, omitting the behaviour of other people. Does it not take two to make a relationship? Is stalking a relationship?

57. Reward/Need Satisfaction - through conditioning:
Clore and Byrne, 1974) The how.....
This is the Learning Theory account of relationship formation, based on the concept of reinforcement. Some people may reward us directly e.g. sex, (operant conditioning) or indirectly by being associated with pleasant circumstances (classical conditioning) EVIDENCE Veitch and Griffitt (1976) placed participants in a waiting room where they listened to either good or bad news with a stranger present. When they were asked to rate the stranger the degree of liking was related to the kind of news they had been listening to. EVALUATION DUCK (1992) criticises such bogus stranger methods for being artificial

58. Try to think of examples of how classical and operant conditioning could have an influence on attraction and formation. hint (try to think of things that could be ‘REINFORCERS’ in a relationship or lead to positive ‘ASSOCIATIONS’ in a relationship)
List them on your sheet

59. Classical Conditioning (learning by association) leads us to like people who indirectly reward us by being nearby when we feel good. Even if they were not involved in making us feel good, after a while we will associate them with the good feeling such that whenever we see them we feel good.
(so people who are around when we are doing something we enjoy e.g. ‘ when we are on holiday!’ we are more prone to be attracted to and to form a relationship with.)
Operant Conditioning (learning by consequences) leads us to like people who directly reward us.
Rewards can include being friendly towards us, smiling and generally acting positively towards us.

60. Evaluation of the model
The theory assumes that people are selfish and only concerned about the reinforcements they receive. Hays, 1995 found that in student relationships as much value was attached to rewarding others as gaining rewards.
Gender differences; there is evidence of gender differences as well as cultural differences. It has been shown that in may cultures, women are socialized into being more attentive to the needs of others than their own (Lott 1994)
It does not account for ‘unrewarding’ relationships
However there is much research evidence that supports the model Schochter, 1959 Affiliation study, and Veitch and Griffitt (1976) waiting room good news/bad news study. (though these rely heavily on bogus stranger studies which are criticised for their lack of ecological validity.
The theory has face validity: is supported by everyday experiences i.e. happy, warm people with a good sense of humour have more friends.
Accounts for research findings: The theory explains why factors such as proximity, similarity and physical attractiveness are important factors.

61. And just to prove that reinforcement, rewards and conditioning works……..

62. What makes a ‘Special’ Relationship?3
What makes a ‘Special’ Relationship?
So is their another theory about how people chose their mates?
Could similarity be one of the most important factors?

63. Yes & Yes! The Matching Hypothesis (Huston 1973)
‘The tendency for people to select partners who are alike in physical attractiveness, background and/or education.’ – so sort of links to “similarity” Now try to think of famous people you know that the hypothesis does & does not apply to. Can their relationships be better explained by Reward & Need satisfaction? Matching hypothesis

64. Famous Couples – How well do they match
Famous Couples – How well do they match? Rate them out of 10 for ‘matchability’

65. Walster et al (1966) Dance study
Questionnaire on perception of others attractiveness compared to judges ratings
More attractive students liked most
At 6 months after they were more likely to be dating someone with the same level of attractiveness.

66. Walster & Walster (1969)
This time students met before the dance and had more time to think about what they were looking for in a partner.
Finding: liked those of the same physical attractiveness

67. Evaluation May be the case
Does not account for other factors and how getting to know someone could influence attractive
Linked to self concept- are we subjective judges of our own attractiveness?

68. Matching up the couples…….
Choose on celebrity or fictional couple
Write an analysis of their relationship using ‘reward/needs satisfaction theory’ and ‘matching hypothesis’
Which theory best explains the formation of their relationship.

69. Culture and Formation of Relationships
Complete the readings on culture in the booklet and identify the differences found between cultures
Do you think what we look for in a amate changes with age?
What about arranged marriages?
Cultures compared
Factor involved
Eg Americans and Israelis
Status –Americans more influenced by status

70. Formation and Maintenance Theories4
Formation and Maintenance Theories
The matching hypothesis and reward/need satisfaction theories explain why two people would choose each other as partners, other theories go beyond this and explain how relationships are maintained.
The two most influential are Social Exchange Theory and Equity Theory. These are referred to as ‘Economic’ theories as they assume that couples calculate ‘costs and benefits’ and ‘investment’ during the relationship.

71. Social Exchange Theory (Thibaut & Kelly 1959)
Satisfaction (profit) is determined by exchange of rewards (sex, affection, support) and costs
(providing support & not always having your own way).
SUPPORTING RESEARCH EVIDENCE
Rusbult (1983) found that costs are only calculated after the honeymoon phase.
Simpson (1990) found that participants who were dating rated members of the opposite sex as less attractive, showing they close themselves off from attractive alternatives.
EVALUATION
Mechanistic approach (how do you define costs and rewards exactly?)
Cannot quantify the point of dissatisfaction.
Clark & Mills (1979) argued that romantic relationships are communal rather than exchange relationships.

72. SOCIAL EXCHANGE THEORY Model of long term relationships
Thibaut and Kelley’(1959)
“There are four stages that long-term relationships go through they are…..”
All these ‘stage’ theories can be criticised for being to rigid – individual differences are not considered. Will everyone go through all the stages?

73. Why does a Social Exchange type relationship breakdown?
Theories referred to in terms of investment, profit, loss, costs & rewards etc.
So if relationship is showing a profit then….
It will continue
But if showing a loss (low amounts of positive satisfaction - few rewards) & High number of attractive alternatives.
It will likely fail.
Thibaut & Kelly stated that people in a relationship constantly compare their relationships with previous relationships and possible alternatives.
If the present relationship compares well with others then the motivation is to maintain the current relationship.

74. SOCIAL EXCHANGE THEORY & BREAKDOWN
However if the prospective relationship appears a better alternative than the present relationship – then the motivation is to end the current relationship.

75. Equity Theory (Walster et al. 1978)
Balance is achieved more through perceived fairness, as in the matching hypothesis. Inequity results in striving to restore balance or in dissolution. This theory is similar to Social exchange but attempts to quantify what makes a relationship fair.
EVIDENCE
Hatfield et al (1972) interviewed over 500 students about equity in their relationships. Three months later the inequitable relationships were more likely to have ended.
EVALUATION
Equity may be maintained by matching any attractivecharacteristics, such as looks, money or status. (Links to matching hypothesis)
Individual differences, - Individuals low in exchange orientation don’t bother about equity (Buunk & VanYperen, 1991)
Cultural Differences – equity is not a norm for all cultures.
These two theories are called ‘economic theories’ because they explain relationships in terms of rewards & costs.

76. Why does an Equity type relationship breakdown?
People try to maximise their rewards and minimize negative experiences within a relationship.
The distribution of rewards is negotiated to ensure fairness. This may be achieved through trade-offs or compensations (i.e. a favour or privilege for one person is paid back by an equivalent favour or privilege.)
Unfair (inequitable) relationships produce dissatisfaction.
As long as the ‘loser’ feels there is a chance of restoring the balance (equity) they are motivated to save the relationship.
This idea of restoring the balance has also been noticed by the advertising industry!

78. Evaluating Social Exchange & Equity Theory
Social Exchange theory tends to see relationships as SNAPSHOTS at one point in time – whereas they are DYNAMIC constantly changing.
This theory see people as CALCULATING (Selfish – What’s in it for me? Am I giving more than I am getting?)
The theory doesn’t take into account the social context of the relationship E.g. Arranged marriages, religion, parenting, health traditions etc.
Research evidence is inconsistent (Clark and Mills, 1979 identified two types of couples:
THE COMMUNAL COUPLE – giving is motivated by concern and positive regard for the other ~ they give to meet each others needs – not expecting anything in return ~ shared responsibility for relationship.
THE EXCHANGE COUPLE – As in social exchange – certain amount of ‘score keeping’ is evident. Expect a return on their investment ~ cost benefit analysis of relationship ~ give but expect same in return.
There is also evidence that equity is not the same for everyone (Hatfield) Equity may be more important for females than males. (Gender Issue)
Murstein et al (1977) Equity may only be a problem in troubled relationships. (Health of relationship issue)

79. IDA Evaluation: Cultural Bias in Economic Theories
THE KEY IDEAS Moghaddam (1993) concluded that Western Relationships were generally: Individualistic Temporary & Voluntary Whereas Non-Western relationships tended to be: Collectivist Obligatory & Permanent So remember : MOGHADDAM I.T.V. COP This means that many of the research studies and / or theories we have studied can be criticised for being:- Ethnocentric (relevant only to the society where the theory and / or study was based) and so lacking cultural relativism.

80. The end of a relationship……5
The end of a relationship……
Watch the following clip and then see if you can make your own model of the breakdown of a relationships using the ideas put forward in the film.

81. Dissolution (Breakdown) of Relationships Factors leading to the breakdown of relationships
Environmental factors (distance, hardship, field of availables, family and friends etc.)
Interpersonal factors (Lack of stimulation, reduction in stimulation, conflict)
Individual factors (background, lack of commitment, social skills, emotional incompatibility)
All of these of course link to the theories we have discussed so far…… how?

82. Rollie & Duck’s (1982) Model of Relationship Breakdown

83. Evaluation Ducks Phase Model
It is descriptive not explanatory. It does not provide reasons for breakdown; it simply describes the stages.
Individual differences. Like other stage theories, it is rigid in that it assumes every breakdown goes through the same stages and this may not necessarily be the case.
Addresses cognitive not just behavioural aspects of relationships. It considers the effects of people’s thinking, feelings and attitudes, not just the effect of their actions.
Important applications. The theory has practical implications for the repair of relationships and has formed the basis of a new model that looks at strategies to repair relationships.
Video relationship councelling?!

84. Cultural Differences in Relationships
Individualist and collectivist cultures research:-
Goodwin (1995 )
Romantic love (Levine et al )
Voluntary and involuntary relationships (Shaver et al., 1991 – found that Chinese attitude to romantic love is that it causes pain and sorrow rather than excitement and satisfaction.
Permanent and impermanent relationships (Simmel, 1971) and of course………
Moghaddam (1993) (and others – see handout)
Differences found by this and other research:-
INDIVIDUALISTTIC
Based on romantic love (on being in love. Individual chooses partner. (Levine et al 1995)
Love seen as essential to a happy marriage.
In general people have a large number of superficial friendships.
COLLECTIVIST
Arranged by family on basis of social status. (Levine et al 1995)
Romantic love not seen as basis for a decision to marry.
In general people have fewer but very close friendships. (Goodwin 1995)

85. Evaluation of Cross Cultural Studies
Comparisons are rather simplistic. The divide between collectivist and individualistic cultures is rather crude and the differences are not entirely clear-cut. E.g. Even in cultures in which marriages are arranged there is some degree of individual choice ( they are not forced marriages) and in individualistic societies parents and social groups do have a strong (if more subtle) influence on peoples choice of spouse.
Cross-cultural research is riddled with problems. It is very difficult for psychologists from one culture to appreciate the complexities of another culture.
They tend to concentrate on the relationship of the couple (a western view) but ignore kinship (family relationships) which are extremely important in collectivist societies, therefore they present a biased view.

86. Other Cultural Variations
Physical attributes
(Long necked
‘Karen’ Tribe women
China small feet etc)
Bond and Cash (1992)
Relative age
Cross-cultural differences in preference
for female body shape
Anderson et al. (1992)
heavy women are preferred to slender
women in the great majority of cultures
where food supply is unreliable
Monogamy and polygamy

87. Other IDA evaluative points
Era Dependant (as social structures & norms generally change over time e.g. single parent families and cohabitation much more common now than 50 years ago)
Assuming Heterosexuality (hetrosexual bias) (Most research is only completed on heterosexual relationships so can we apply them to homosexual with any confidence?)
Some have Ethical Problems – what if no one wanted to date you!
Many would be difficult to make generalisations from because the task or environment was artificial (lacked mundane realism) Walster not how we normally arrange a date etc.

88. That’s all folks!